On Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:20:31 EDT, Duane Weaver <WEAVER@OHSTVMA> wrote: >The list owner contacted me for assistance. The current peer >structure is UKCC---UTARLVM1----TEMPLEVM >I think the peer structure should be UTARLVM1--TEMPLEVM--UKCC. >What should it be? If I enter 'TELL LISTSERV AT node SHOW PATH node1 node', I find that: UKCC is connected to UGA, UTARLVM1 is connected to RICEVM1, TEMPLEVM is connected to PUNFSV2, and that UGA and RICEVM1 and PUNFSV2 are inter-connected, i.e., they form the corners of a triangle, and one peer is connected to each corner. Thus, in this case, each of the three "peers" is **exactly** the same number of BITNET hops from each other peer. So, the two stated paths are equally "efficient", if you ignore the different link-speeds and average-BITNET-queues at each link. >The list owner is concerned about the Warning messages in the mail >header records. See the two examples below. I suspect that the >problem is at the peer sites in how their RSCS or MAILER is setup. I suspect that the list-definitions don't **correctly** list the ID/node of the "peer" hosts. The list is defined as "REVIEW=OWNER", so I can't verify this, but I suspect that the ID [log in to unmask] is listed as a subscriber, instead of [log in to unmask] >---------------------------Original message--------------------------------- >Sender: The India Interest Group <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The India Interest Group <[log in to unmask]> >Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was [log in to unmask] >X-To: Multiple recipients of list INDIA-D <[log in to unmask]>